What I don't understand about gun Nazis

[2aguy]

No....normal people are not shooting each other....and the few nuts who shoot people in gun free zones aren't paying attention to the gun free zone signs already.

Normal people carrying guns in gun free zones will keep the nuts away...they are looking for a killing field not a gun fight.

By "Normal" you mean "white'. Why can't you guys ever say what you mean.

Lanza. Loughner. Holmes. Harris and Kleibold... All White guys from middle class homes.

Gee, weren't they all white Liberals????

Maybe we should just bar the mentally defective Libs from owning guns!!!!

And he forgets the Long Island shooter...not a white guy, or the D.C. snipers...not white guys...or the Virginia tech shooter...not a white guy.....or the Kansas city shooter last week...not a white guy......

He thinks like a 12 year old...and I am being generous.....more like an 8 year old.....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Should we tax alcohol for the people who kill other people with cars while drunk? Maybe we should just tax the sales of cars!!!

What is it we require car owners to do to protect other people from accidents caused by another driver? Oh that's right. INSURANCE.
That's what drivers have to pay for their mistakes that cause others to be injured.


And Ray. We already tax the sales of cars. What where you trying to say Ray?

How about requiring gun owners to have insurance Ray?

Insurance doesn't pay what it costs taxpayers to imprison somebody who got drunk and killed another person(s). Do we have a tax on pot in Washington and Colorado to help offset the cost of imprisoned drug dealers?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your anti-gun ideas are stupid.

Why should gun owners pay for crimes committed by others who use a gun? Should we tax alcohol for the people who kill other people with cars while drunk? Maybe we should just tax the sales of cars!!!

Well you stupid fuck this long term jail time for any crime committed with a gun is not my idea. It is 2ndAmend idea.

But someone has to pay for the increased jails and longer minimum sentences. and that was the topic.

Why should the general public pay much more money for a crime just because a gun was used. And yes crimes with guns now cause longer prison sentences. But usually someone is shot.

2nd A wants 10 years mandatory for first time offender who pistol whips someone. That is assault. 2 years maybe

That longer, mandatory sentences whenever a gun is used for any kind of crime would get expensive fast.

How to pay for that was the topic. Of course you gun nuts don't want to pay for it. You think there are no costs to great to bear to have easy access to guns. But I doubt the non gun lovers would support that idea.

Legal gun owners should not be paying the bill because the gun didn't do anything wrong. It was the person who used the gun that committed the crime.

That's why the bill should belong to the public. Or maybe we should just tax Democrats since it's their judges who turned out prisons into playgrounds and it's not much of a deterrent to crime.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Nope......if you were a political problem for the nazis you could not have a gun....

The gun registration created in the Weimar Republic allowed the nazis to easily disarm the Jews and their enemies....and the disarming of civilians after World War 1 allowed the Germans to murder 12 million innocent men, women and children.

Naw, guy, what allowed them to do it is they had tanks and planes and well organized divisions. The reality was, armed populations are NEVER a match for a well trained army that simply doesn't give a fuck about how many civilians they kill.

It's why you had that town in Czechoslovakia that shot a top Nazi, and the Nazis killed every last person in the town.

Is that why in Afghanistan Vietnam and other places with armed resistance the army fighting them had such a hard time beating them?

 

[gipper]

Nope......if you were a political problem for the nazis you could not have a gun....

The gun registration created in the Weimar Republic allowed the nazis to easily disarm the Jews and their enemies....and the disarming of civilians after World War 1 allowed the Germans to murder 12 million innocent men, women and children.

Naw, guy, what allowed them to do it is they had tanks and planes and well organized divisions. The reality was, armed populations are NEVER a match for a well trained army that simply doesn't give a fuck about how many civilians they kill.

It's why you had that town in Czechoslovakia that shot a top Nazi, and the Nazis killed every last person in the town.

Is that why in Afghanistan Vietnam and other places with armed resistance the army fighting them had such a hard time beating them?

Not only those conflicts you list, but what of the American Revolution? It would not have been successful, if the Americans had no access to arms.

Joe much prefers the conditions present in say Ireland, during it's occupation by Great Britain. The Irish had no guns and could not oppose the Limeys, as such they were subject to much suffering and death. Just one example among many, where the elite had the weapons and thus could do as they wished.

It is amazing that we Americans fight about this issue. It should be a non-issue and was in our nation until the 1960s when the Left started to pervert things....now fools like Joe have bought their BS...dividing Americans.

 

[2aguy]

Nope......if you were a political problem for the nazis you could not have a gun....

The gun registration created in the Weimar Republic allowed the nazis to easily disarm the Jews and their enemies....and the disarming of civilians after World War 1 allowed the Germans to murder 12 million innocent men, women and children.

Naw, guy, what allowed them to do it is they had tanks and planes and well organized divisions. The reality was, armed populations are NEVER a match for a well trained army that simply doesn't give a fuck about how many civilians they kill.

It's why you had that town in Czechoslovakia that shot a top Nazi, and the Nazis killed every last person in the town.

Is that why in Afghanistan Vietnam and other places with armed resistance the army fighting them had such a hard time beating them?

Not only those conflicts you list, but what of the American Revolution? It would not have been successful, if the Americans had no access to arms.

Joe much prefers the conditions present in say Ireland, during it's occupation by Great Britain. The Irish had no guns and could not oppose the Limeys, as such they were subject to much suffering and death. Just one example among many, where the elite had the weapons and thus could do as they wished.

It is amazing that we Americans fight about this issue. It should be a non-issue and was in our nation until the 1960s when the Left started to pervert things....now fools like Joe have bought their BS...dividing Americans.

You would think that Europeans who experienced mass murder at the hands of the Germans because they were disarmed would have learned their lesson...but no.....they gave up their guns...again......

Europeans are stupid.......they did not learn their lesson.....

 

[JoeB131]

Gee, weren't they all white Liberals????

Maybe we should just bar the mentally defective Libs from owning guns!!!!

i don't think Dylan Roof was a "liberal".

Just remember, when black people shoot people, they are "Criminals".

When white people shoot something up, it's "mental illness".

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah...tell that to the guys who are making us leave Afghanistan and Iraq.....they had surplus rifles and improvised explosives vs. the greatest military power in the world...and we are leaving...they did it to the second greatest military power, the Russians back in the 80s.........

And Vietnam.....

Well, yes, when your leaders LIE you into a war you have no stake in, you won't get people too keen to fight it.

Oddly, the Nazis never had a problem with armed populaces. More French collaborated than resisted.

 

[JoeB131]

And he forgets the Long Island shooter...not a white guy, or the D.C. snipers...not white guys...or the Virginia tech shooter...not a white guy.....or the Kansas city shooter last week...not a white guy......

He thinks like a 12 year old...and I am being generous.....more like an 8 year old.....

Regardless of color, most of them were crazy people- who were STILL able to get guns.

What's wrong with this picture?

 

[JoeB131]

Is that why in Afghanistan Vietnam and other places with armed resistance the army fighting them had such a hard time beating them?

Well, let's look at that.

Vietnam- where you just didn't have an "armed populace", you had Russia, China and North Vietnam pouring in hundreds of thousands of tons of ordnance. And they pretty much lost every armed engagement to the US. The Tet Offensive was a military disaster for the Vietcong. But because the American populace decided, "Hey, why are we fighting Vietnam's civil War for them?", we left.

As for Afghanistan... fact was the Communist Government in Kabul lasted longer than the Communist government in Moscow. And again, you have another wonderful example of another country pouring in tons of ordnance, and foreign fighters like that Bin Laden guy going there.

So neither one of those is an example of a "well-armed populace" offering effective military resistance, the masturbatory fantasy of you gun nuts.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Is that why in Afghanistan Vietnam and other places with armed resistance the army fighting them had such a hard time beating them?

Well, let's look at that.

Vietnam- where you just didn't have an "armed populace", you had Russia, China and North Vietnam pouring in hundreds of thousands of tons of ordnance. And they pretty much lost every armed engagement to the US. The Tet Offensive was a military disaster for the Vietcong. But because the American populace decided, "Hey, why are we fighting Vietnam's civil War for them?", we left.

As for Afghanistan... fact was the Communist Government in Kabul lasted longer than the Communist government in Moscow. And again, you have another wonderful example of another country pouring in tons of ordnance, and foreign fighters like that Bin Laden guy going there.

So neither one of those is an example of a "well-armed populace" offering effective military resistance, the masturbatory fantasy of you gun nuts.

Ya cause after all neither one of those Countries would have lasted a day if they had not already been armed. You are an idiot. Remind us how when it suits your narrative we lost Vietnam not cause of the arms shipped in or the North Vietnamese but because we gave up.

 

[billyerock1991]

1. Why is it that we should not hold all Muslims to blame for a few lunatic few terrorists by forcibly screeing them in any way, but we should hold all gun owners suspect of being guilty until proven innocent with various screening processes because of a few lunatic domestic terrorists?

2, Why is it that we should trust the police and the military with guns more than the average citizen?

3. When you finally get a lib stooge on the Supreme Court to rip up the 2nd Amendment, only needing one more after Scalia died, how will you round up all the guns?

As Patrick Henry once wrote, "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

The entire Canadian active-duty army has fewer people carrying arms than the US federal government civilian agencies!

using a bolt cutter to snap that cold dead finger from your gun thats how ... Idiot !!!!

 

[Wilbur Right]

Murder and attempted murder should be life in prison.

Pistol whipping.....using a gun...10 years......and since the person doing the pistol whipping will more than likely already have a criminal record and have been prohibited from owning the gun...another 10 years for illegal ownership of the gun.

It is cheaper to lock up violent criminals than to

Ah well 2nd A nut. Your idea of locking people up for very long periods of time didn't meet with approval.

Seems no one wants to pay for the additional.costs to incarcerate.

And being the stupid short sighted dumb fucks you gun nutters are, rather than trying to help reduce gun violence, you all want to do nothing. Or want to make all people help pay for your fetish.

But the others gun nutters have spoken. Your idea sucks cause no one wants to pay for it.

 

[JoeB131]

Ya cause after all neither one of those Countries would have lasted a day if they had not already been armed. You are an idiot. Remind us how when it suits your narrative we lost Vietnam not cause of the arms shipped in or the North Vietnamese but because we gave up.

I realize that you are slow and shit, but the fact is, the Vietcong didn't take us on with saturday night specials. They took us on with AK-47's that the Russians delivered by the crateload. And it took them decades to push us out before we finally gave up.

But oh-boy, Vietnam became a gun-lover's paradise after they pushed us out, didn't it?

Um. No, it became a communist dictatorship with killing fields and re-education camps.

Whoops.

 

[gipper]

Ya cause after all neither one of those Countries would have lasted a day if they had not already been armed. You are an idiot. Remind us how when it suits your narrative we lost Vietnam not cause of the arms shipped in or the North Vietnamese but because we gave up.

I realize that you are slow and shit, but the fact is, the Vietcong didn't take us on with saturday night specials. They took us on with AK-47's that the Russians delivered by the crateload. And it took them decades to push us out before we finally gave up.

But oh-boy, Vietnam became a gun-lover's paradise after they pushed us out, didn't it?

Um. No, it became a communist dictatorship with killing fields and re-education camps.

Whoops.

Joe do not change the subject as you often do, when losing the debate. We are debating weapons, not the consequences of the war.

If the VC and NVA had no access to weapons, they would not have beaten the French or Americans. Even a fool like you must recognize that.

And...the VC and NVA beat the French and Americans essentially with the AK-47. They had almost no air force or navy. They had little in the way of artillery or tanks. They won by using an automatic rifle operated by a foot soldier.

 

[2aguy]

Murder and attempted murder should be life in prison.

Pistol whipping.....using a gun...10 years......and since the person doing the pistol whipping will more than likely already have a criminal record and have been prohibited from owning the gun...another 10 years for illegal ownership of the gun.

It is cheaper to lock up violent criminals than to

Ah well 2nd A nut. Your idea of locking people up for very long periods of time didn't meet with approval.

Seems no one wants to pay for the additional.costs to incarcerate.

And being the stupid short sighted dumb fucks you gun nutters are, rather than trying to help reduce gun violence, you all want to do nothing. Or want to make all people help pay for your fetish.

But the others gun nutters have spoken. Your idea sucks cause no one wants to pay for it.

You have no ideas on how to reduce gun violence twit. The people shooting other people have long criminal histories and most of them have previous arrests for carrying illegal guns.....and then they are released....then they murder someone. The former police commissioner of Chicago stated that prosecutors and judges were letting felons, caught with an illegal gun, back on the street and that felony gun possession was the precursor crime to gun murder.

In any of these democrat hell holes you have a very small number of killers doing all of the murder....lock them up....address the young males with no fathers...and you go a long way to reducing gun murder.

You are the morons.....each gun law you propose only effects normal people...and does absolutely nothing to stop actual criminals from getting guns....and then you march around like you have achieved something.......you are the moron....you are the twit.....

 

[2aguy]

Ya cause after all neither one of those Countries would have lasted a day if they had not already been armed. You are an idiot. Remind us how when it suits your narrative we lost Vietnam not cause of the arms shipped in or the North Vietnamese but because we gave up.

I realize that you are slow and shit, but the fact is, the Vietcong didn't take us on with saturday night specials. They took us on with AK-47's that the Russians delivered by the crateload. And it took them decades to push us out before we finally gave up.

But oh-boy, Vietnam became a gun-lover's paradise after they pushed us out, didn't it?

Um. No, it became a communist dictatorship with killing fields and re-education camps.

Whoops.

And how were the killing fields possible.....the civilians had no guns...the government did.......the exact formula morons want for here.....

mass murder, genocide, and ethnic cleansing can only happen when the civilians have no guns..........

 

[2aguy]

Yeah...tell that to the guys who are making us leave Afghanistan and Iraq.....they had surplus rifles and improvised explosives vs. the greatest military power in the world...and we are leaving...they did it to the second greatest military power, the Russians back in the 80s.........

And Vietnam.....

Well, yes, when your leaders LIE you into a war you have no stake in, you won't get people too keen to fight it.

Oddly, the Nazis never had a problem with armed populaces. More French collaborated than resisted.

Twit....the French people were disarmed after World War 1......they were completely helpless after their military was pushed over by the Germans........dittos the rest of Europe....except for the Swiss...with over 435,000 people under arms....civilians.....they were never invaded...

 

[2aguy]

Is that why in Afghanistan Vietnam and other places with armed resistance the army fighting them had such a hard time beating them?

Well, let's look at that.

Vietnam- where you just didn't have an "armed populace", you had Russia, China and North Vietnam pouring in hundreds of thousands of tons of ordnance. And they pretty much lost every armed engagement to the US. The Tet Offensive was a military disaster for the Vietcong. But because the American populace decided, "Hey, why are we fighting Vietnam's civil War for them?", we left.

As for Afghanistan... fact was the Communist Government in Kabul lasted longer than the Communist government in Moscow. And again, you have another wonderful example of another country pouring in tons of ordnance, and foreign fighters like that Bin Laden guy going there.

So neither one of those is an example of a "well-armed populace" offering effective military resistance, the masturbatory fantasy of you gun nuts.

And what happened in those countries twit..........tired of dealing with the natives...those countries pulled out...because it was too much of a hassle dealing with the natives armed with rifles.....

You actually do have the reasoning ability of an 8 year old.......

 

[Conservative65]

"What I don't understand about gun Nazis"

You also don't understand what a straw man fallacy is either; your thread premise is an example of one, and it fails as a consequence.

A straw man fallacy is when one contrives a lie about his opponent in an effort to misrepresent his opponent's position on the issue, such as the lie that there are 'gun Nazis,' and then attacks that contrived 'position' (straw man) in an effort to win the 'argument.'

No one presumes gun owners to be 'guilty,' the notion is ridiculous idiocy.

No one trusts the police and military more than the average citizen with guns, that's delusional nonsense.

And no one seeks to 'rip up' the Second Amendment, or 'round up all the guns,' that's as ignorant as it is moronic.

If you don't presume gun owners to be guilty, why do you support laws that will affect those not having done bad things with guns thinking those laws will prevent criminals who don't care about the laws? Thinking that more guns laws will stop those who don't abide by them is a ridiculous idiocy that you gun haters show every time you talk about "common sense gun control".